Adam: >>>"There is only one version of RDA that counts now, and that is the one that is available through the RDA Toolkit, or, lacking that, the printed loose-leaf version of RDA sold by ALA, CLA, CILIP, etc."
I disagree. Any given standard can only have a _single_ authoritative source. If there's any difference between RDA Online and the print version of RDA, no matter how minor, the print version is _not_ an authoritative source of RDA. Even the correction of a spelling error in RDA Online renders the print version non-authoritative. >>>"The actual RDA is what counts now and it really behooves all of us who comment on specific instructions to have access to it." So those with access to RDA Online can comment, hash out the fine points, and be an active participant in the understanding and adoption of RDA. Those using the print version of RDA, or the drafts, should remain passive participants in the process until they have access to the "actual RDA". Correct? That seems valid to me, but the consequences are pretty serious in terms of the adoption of RDA. If someone like myself owns the print version, has an active interest in RDA, and has found points of interest and problems in RDA, the delay that results in putting off those questions/discussion until I have access to RDA Online is problematic. Paul Burley Paul R. Burley Technical Services Librarian Northwestern University Transportation Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, Illinois 60208-2300 Phone, 847-491-5274 Fax, 847-491-8601 Transportation Library: http://www.library.northwestern.edu/transportation/ -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Thoughts re: 336-338 for a streaming video file > But, in the version of RDA which I read, at 3.4.1.3 we were referred > to 3.4.1.5 for other unit names (aka SMDs) which may be used in > collation (aka carrier type and extent). There is only one version of RDA that counts now, and that is the one that is available through the RDA Toolkit, or, lacking that, the printed loose-leaf version of RDA sold by ALA, CLA, CILIP, etc. Note that corrected typos and other changes that are being made at regular update intervals in the Toolkit will not be reflected in the printed version that the publishers sell. It really makes no sense anymore to be referring to earlier drafts of these rules and basing policies on them. The actual RDA is what counts now and it really behooves all of us who comment on specific instructions to have access to it. Adam ************************************** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger * * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **************************************
